We forget the
injuries
and feel for the man.
Robert Forst
I must likewise notice
that beautiful paragraph beginning, "The gleaming lake," &c. I dare
not go into the particular beauties of the last two paragraphs, but
they are admirably fine, and truly Ossianic.
I must beg your pardon for this lengthened scrawl. I had no idea of it
when I began--I should like to know who the author is; but, whoever he
be, please present him with my grateful thanks for the entertainment
he has afforded me.
A friend of mine desired me to commission for him two books, "Letters
on the Religion essential to Man," a book you sent me before; and "The
World unmasked, or the Philosopher the greatest Cheat. " Send me them
by the first opportunity. The Bible you sent me is truly elegant; I
only wish it had been in two volumes.
R. B.
* * * * *
CXXXVIII.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR. "
[The clergyman who preached the sermon which this letter condemns, was
a man equally worthy and stern--a divine of Scotland's elder day: he
received "a harmonious call" to a smaller stipend than that of
Dunscore--and accepted it. ]
_November 8th, 1788. _
SIR,
Notwithstanding the opprobrious epithets with which some of our
philosophers and gloomy sectarians have branded our nature--the
principle of universal selfishness, the proneness to all evil, they
have given us; still the detestation in which inhumanity to the
distressed, or insolence to the fallen, are held by all mankind, shows
that they are not natives of the human heart. Even the unhappy partner
of our kind, who is undone, the bitter consequence of his follies or
his crimes, who but sympathizes with the miseries of this ruined
profligate brother?
We forget the injuries and feel for the man.
I went, last Wednesday, to my parish church, most cordially to join in
grateful acknowledgment to the AUTHOR OF ALL GOOD, for the
consequent blessings of the glorious revolution. To that auspicious
event we owe no less than our liberties, civil and religious; to it we
are likewise indebted for the present Royal Family, the ruling
features of whose administration have ever been mildness to the
subject, and tenderness of his rights.
Bred and educated in revolution principles, the principles of reason
and common sense, it could not be any silly political prejudice which
made my heart revolt at the harsh abusive manner in which the reverend
gentleman mentioned the House of Stewart, and which, I am afraid, was
too much the language of the day. We may rejoice sufficiently in our
deliverance from past evils, without cruelly raking up the ashes of
those whose misfortune it was, perhaps as much as their crime, to be
the authors of those evils; and we may bless God for all his goodness
to us as a nation, without at the same time cursing a few ruined,
powerless exiles, who only harboured ideas, and made attempts, that
most of us would have done, had we been in their situation.
"The bloody and tyrannical House of Stewart" may be said with
propriety and justice, when compared with the present royal family,
and the sentiments of our days; but is there no allowance to be made
for the manners of the times? Were the royal contemporaries of the
Stewarts more attentive to their subjects' rights? Might not the
epithets of "bloody and tyrannical" be, with at least equal justice,
applied to the House of Tudor, of York, or any other of their
predecessors?
The simple state of the case, Sir, seems to be this:--At that period,
the science of government, the knowledge of the true relation between
king and subject, was, like other sciences and other knowledge, just
in its infancy, emerging from dark ages of ignorance and barbarity.
The Stewarts only contended for prerogatives which they knew their
predecessors enjoyed, and which they saw their contemporaries
enjoying; but these prerogatives were inimical to the happiness of a
nation and the rights of subjects.
In the contest between prince and people, the consequence of that
light of science which had lately dawned over Europe, the monarch of
France, for example, was victorious over the struggling liberties of
his people: with us, luckily the monarch failed, and his unwarrantable
pretensions fell a sacrifice to our rights and happiness. Whether it
was owing to the wisdom of leading individuals, or to the justling
of parties, I cannot pretend to determine; but likewise happily for
us, the kingly power was shifted into another branch of the family,
who, as they owed the throne solely to the call of a free people,
could claim nothing inconsistent with the covenanted terms which
placed them there.
The Stewarts have been condemned and laughed at for the folly and
impracticability of their attempts in 1715 and 1745. That they failed,
I bless GOD; but cannot join in the ridicule against them.
Who does not know that the abilities or defects of leaders and
commanders are often hidden until put to the touchstone of exigency;
and that there is a caprice of fortune, an omnipotence in particular
accidents and conjunctures of circumstances, which exalt us as heroes,
or brand us as madmen, just as they are for or against us?
Man, Mr.
that beautiful paragraph beginning, "The gleaming lake," &c. I dare
not go into the particular beauties of the last two paragraphs, but
they are admirably fine, and truly Ossianic.
I must beg your pardon for this lengthened scrawl. I had no idea of it
when I began--I should like to know who the author is; but, whoever he
be, please present him with my grateful thanks for the entertainment
he has afforded me.
A friend of mine desired me to commission for him two books, "Letters
on the Religion essential to Man," a book you sent me before; and "The
World unmasked, or the Philosopher the greatest Cheat. " Send me them
by the first opportunity. The Bible you sent me is truly elegant; I
only wish it had been in two volumes.
R. B.
* * * * *
CXXXVIII.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR. "
[The clergyman who preached the sermon which this letter condemns, was
a man equally worthy and stern--a divine of Scotland's elder day: he
received "a harmonious call" to a smaller stipend than that of
Dunscore--and accepted it. ]
_November 8th, 1788. _
SIR,
Notwithstanding the opprobrious epithets with which some of our
philosophers and gloomy sectarians have branded our nature--the
principle of universal selfishness, the proneness to all evil, they
have given us; still the detestation in which inhumanity to the
distressed, or insolence to the fallen, are held by all mankind, shows
that they are not natives of the human heart. Even the unhappy partner
of our kind, who is undone, the bitter consequence of his follies or
his crimes, who but sympathizes with the miseries of this ruined
profligate brother?
We forget the injuries and feel for the man.
I went, last Wednesday, to my parish church, most cordially to join in
grateful acknowledgment to the AUTHOR OF ALL GOOD, for the
consequent blessings of the glorious revolution. To that auspicious
event we owe no less than our liberties, civil and religious; to it we
are likewise indebted for the present Royal Family, the ruling
features of whose administration have ever been mildness to the
subject, and tenderness of his rights.
Bred and educated in revolution principles, the principles of reason
and common sense, it could not be any silly political prejudice which
made my heart revolt at the harsh abusive manner in which the reverend
gentleman mentioned the House of Stewart, and which, I am afraid, was
too much the language of the day. We may rejoice sufficiently in our
deliverance from past evils, without cruelly raking up the ashes of
those whose misfortune it was, perhaps as much as their crime, to be
the authors of those evils; and we may bless God for all his goodness
to us as a nation, without at the same time cursing a few ruined,
powerless exiles, who only harboured ideas, and made attempts, that
most of us would have done, had we been in their situation.
"The bloody and tyrannical House of Stewart" may be said with
propriety and justice, when compared with the present royal family,
and the sentiments of our days; but is there no allowance to be made
for the manners of the times? Were the royal contemporaries of the
Stewarts more attentive to their subjects' rights? Might not the
epithets of "bloody and tyrannical" be, with at least equal justice,
applied to the House of Tudor, of York, or any other of their
predecessors?
The simple state of the case, Sir, seems to be this:--At that period,
the science of government, the knowledge of the true relation between
king and subject, was, like other sciences and other knowledge, just
in its infancy, emerging from dark ages of ignorance and barbarity.
The Stewarts only contended for prerogatives which they knew their
predecessors enjoyed, and which they saw their contemporaries
enjoying; but these prerogatives were inimical to the happiness of a
nation and the rights of subjects.
In the contest between prince and people, the consequence of that
light of science which had lately dawned over Europe, the monarch of
France, for example, was victorious over the struggling liberties of
his people: with us, luckily the monarch failed, and his unwarrantable
pretensions fell a sacrifice to our rights and happiness. Whether it
was owing to the wisdom of leading individuals, or to the justling
of parties, I cannot pretend to determine; but likewise happily for
us, the kingly power was shifted into another branch of the family,
who, as they owed the throne solely to the call of a free people,
could claim nothing inconsistent with the covenanted terms which
placed them there.
The Stewarts have been condemned and laughed at for the folly and
impracticability of their attempts in 1715 and 1745. That they failed,
I bless GOD; but cannot join in the ridicule against them.
Who does not know that the abilities or defects of leaders and
commanders are often hidden until put to the touchstone of exigency;
and that there is a caprice of fortune, an omnipotence in particular
accidents and conjunctures of circumstances, which exalt us as heroes,
or brand us as madmen, just as they are for or against us?
Man, Mr.
